Friday, August 23, 2019

CHESS IS USEFUL IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS USELESS

A journalist Clive Thompson has written an interesting essay

Why Chess Will Destroy Your Mind 

It turns out that at the area of the reign of chess genius Morphy when chess became very popular in America, the scientific journal Scientific American published a short essay about the uselessness and even harmfulness of the chess game:

“CHESS-PLAYING EXCITEMENT.” 
Scientific American, vol. 1, no. 1, 1859, pp. 9–9.

Some quotations from that scientific paper:

... chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while at the same time it affords no benefit whatever to the body.

A game of chess does not add a single new fact to the mind; it does not excite a single beautiful thought; nor does it serve a single purpose for polishing and improving the nobler faculties.
Those who are engaged in mental pursuits should avoid a chess-board as they would an adder’s nest, because chess misdirects and exhausts their intellectual energies.


 ♘♘♘ 

As a reply to Clive Thompson, I wrote a post

Chess is Useful in the sense that it is Useless 


It is based on Paul Keres's short remark from 1944 concerning weapons, fighting and board games:
Paul Keres rarely said anything about politics or real life. However, at the end of World War II, he laconically said that there would be lesser wars if those who like to fight with others would do it harmlessly on the chessboard. I think that maybe Keres had Sigmund Freud’s theory in mind or something like that, I do not know.
Of course, sports as a means to harmlessly express one’s primitive instincts is a kind of justification for it.
However, I do not believe that sports can be used to avoid wars. Those who like the real power and real battle, are despising chess as mere replacement activity.
♘ ♘ ♘
I could not find that quotation of Paul Keres I kept in mind when writing the text above. Perhaps it was only my interpretation of some of his sayings?
However, what I did find is the following quotation (in Estonian):
Igas inimeses peitub tahe oma jõudu mõne teisega mõõta, ükskõik millisel kujul see avaldub. Ühed haaravad relvade järele, teised lepivad rusikatega, kolmandad valivad rahulikumaid teid ja siirduvad spordiväljale, neljandad istuvad laua taha ja püüavad teist ületada mõnes mängus.
The original publication was in the newspaper:
Paul Keres, “Noored ja malemäng” [= “Youngs and Chess”], Postimees, 8. March 1944, nr 56, p 4.
It was reprinted in the collection:
Paul Keres, Igavene tuli [= Eternal Check], (Tartu: Ilmamaa, 2006), pp 199–204.
My approximate translation:
Each person has a willingness to measure his strength with others, in whatever form it manifests itself. Some are grabbing weapons, others agree with fists, the third choose a calmer way and move into the sports field, the fourth sit behind the table and try to overcome the other in some games.
 Paul Keres, 1944


Saturday, August 10, 2019

I CHANGED MY BLOGGER ACCOUNT


I changed my chess blog's account. 


Earlier, the address was

jeintaluchess.blogspot.com

From now on, the address is

chessmaletaja.blogspot.com

The new name of the blog is

Chess/Male 

"Male" is chess in Estonian language.

However, there is a confusion concerning it.

I realised that no one reads my chess blog and that all people were gathered into the Facebook, the main if not the only advantage of which is the very same fact that all people are gathered into the Facebook.

Thus, I created a chess page in the Facebook with the name

Chess/Male

And I really have some followers there, some Estonian chess players.

Unfortunately, it was impossible to create the username "chess/male" because the sign "/" is prohibited.
Therefore, my chess blog's address in the Facebook is

@chessmale

There, most of my posts are in Estonian.

Afterwards it turned out that some people interpreted this address in the following way:

"male" is the opposition of "female" - as if I did not create the address "chessfemale" only because of I was male.

But I forgot it.

Finally, I decided to return to the Google Blogger, because the technical possibilities in the Facebook are poor, while the Facebook is built on the advertisements, which I very much dislike.

Now, an obstacle arose.

Surprisingly, Google regards the username "chessmale" as being against the community standards. Or I do not now what. Among other things, why they do not think that some words in English language can be insulting if read as words in Estonian language?

The other possibility is that someone got the idea to block me of using that username. Or I do not know. Anyway, there was a possibility to choose the username

"chessmale777"

for example.

However, I chose the username

"chessmaletaja"

If to translate from Estonian to English:

"male" - "chess"
"maletaja" - "chess player"

As it is only a chess blog, I shall not politicise here about the fact that the Estonian word "neeger" is actually neutral in Estonian language, etc. Because I would not use it in the username of my chess blog. However, it is obvious that the community standards are chosen according to the English-speaking world, perhaps according to the U.S. standards.

From now on, this blogger here is in English and about more serious staff.

My Facebook page Chess/Male, on the other hand, remains in Estonian language and can contain some short jokes, recent news, etc.


♘♘♘ 


FACEBOOK DECLARES THAT MY CHESS BLOG'S LINK IS AGAINST THEIR COMMUNITY STANDARDS 




Suddenly it turns out that it is impossible to share my blog posts to the Facebook, because my blog's name supposedly violates their community standards.

Even worse: it was impossible to send a private message about it to my friend (he is an IT-journalist). Facebook declared that my message in the Facebook Messenger contained a link that was against their community standards. Among other things, it shows that they are monitoring and censoring private messages.



Finally, of course, one cannot know the reasons if the reasons have not been presented.
It is a real Kafka.
One can only guess. Some alternative hypotheses. For example, perhaps the chess terminology is regarded as a "violent content"?
Who knows. 

Saturday, October 17, 2015

A NEW MOVE IN THE KGA BISHOP's GAMBIT


Eintalu Jüri - Uibos Andre 1 - 0



It seems that my move 4. Ne2 has not been played earlier.

Formally, the present game was correspondence chess, using the site lichess.org
We agreed not to use computer analysis during the game.
However, actually, we used this website to play a caffee chess, having an option to do other things as well during the game. Officially, one day per move, but actually we played 3 days only.
In fact, I did not use the external chessboard and only rarely looked upon the diagram.
Some mistakes are due to the trolleybus and a small screen of the mobile phone.

This game turned out to be very interesting to my mind.


For the computer analysis with my comments, see the following site:

http://lichess.org/QIwWQ0Ys"


Below, I am trying to shortly comment on this game. 

     1.   e2-e4         e7-e5    
     2.   f2-f4         e5xf4    
     3.  Bf1-c4   
 

King's Gambit, Accepted, Bishop's Gambit.

     3...             Bf8-e7   

  


   

     4.  Ng1-e2!?        Be7-h4?!+    

The right move is 4... d5! and White has difficulties. For example:

4. exd5? Bh4+ 5 g3? (Else, what was the idea of 4. Ne2 instead of the usual 4. Nf3.) 5... Bg4!! and Black wins; 


4. Bxd5 and now: 

4... Bh4+!? is probably the best, but these variations are sharp and highly complicated; 

4... c6 5. Bc4 b5 6. Bb3 Bh4+ 7. g3 fxg3 8. 0-0 and probably White survives with an exact play.


     5.   g2-g3         f4xg3    
     6.   h2xg3        Bh4-f6    
     7.   d2-d4         d7-d5    
     8.  Bc4xd5        Ng8-e7    
     9.  Bd5-b3        Ne7-c6    
    10.   c2-c3        Bc8-g4    
    11.     O-O           O-O  





   
Here, White should have been played 12. Qd3, letting the square e3 free for one's queen (in case of Black's move Ne5 here or later). For example, 12...Na5?! 13. Bc2.

But White wanted to secure the pawn d4...

    12.  Bc1-e3?!        Nc6-a5!  


 Now, 13. Bc2 Nc4 14. Bc1 Bg5 did not seem to be good for White.
  
    13.  Qd1-d3        Na5xb3    
    14.   a2xb3        Nb8-c6   





 
    15.  Nb1-d2?


White is suffocating one's undefended queen on the square d3  while that Queen is the only defender of the knight on the square e2.

It was better to play 15. Nf4, defending the queen d3 and removing the attacked knight e2.


15...        Nc6-e5!    
16.  Qd3-b5         a7-a6    
17.  Qb5xb7        Bg4xe2    
18.   d4xe5?


 Better was 18. Rf2.
 





18...        Bf6xe5?!

Stronger was 18...Bg5!

    19.  Rf1-f2        Qd8-d3    
    20.  Nd2-c4        Ra8-b8    
    21.  Qb7-a7!






21...        Be5xc3?!

21...f6 was sufficiently good. After 22. Nxe5 fxe5 White's bishop e3 does not have good places d4 or f4, while Black has opened the f-file for one's rook on f8.

I was prepared to analyse the continuation 21...f6 22. Qxa6 Bh5.
    
    22.   b2xc3        Rb8xb3    
    23.  Ra1-e1        Rb3xc3    
    24.  Rf2xe2        Qd3xc4    
    25.  Be3-f2






Now, White has a good position.

25...        Qc4-c6    
26.  Re2-a2        Rf8-a8    
27.  Qa7-d4        Qc6-c4    
28.  Re1-d1        Qc4xd4    
29.  Rd1xd4         c7-c5?


 Here or later, Black had to make a move f7-f6 or h7-h6...





    30.  Ra2xa6!        Ra8-c8    
    31.  Rd4-d7        Rc3-c1+   
    32.  Kg1-g2         c5-c4   





 
    33.  Ra6-c6


In a practical game, it is much safer than the attack on the 7-th rank 33. Raa7.


 33...       Rc8-e8    
 34.  Rd7-c7         h7-h6    
 35.  Rc6xc4        Rc1xc4    
 36.  Rc7xc4     




 


Black resigns

            1-0


Sunday, June 28, 2015

HAAG-MOSKVA 1948 VIKIPEEDIAS LÕPETATUD - ja ka PDF ning DJVU

1948. aasta male maailmameistrivõistlustele


pühendatud artikkel Vikipeedias on minu poolt nüüd lõpetatud. Selle artikli, mida teised autorid saavad edaspidi muuta või täiendada, Vikipeedia aadress on siin:


Selle artikli minu praegune ja nähtavasti olemuslikult viimane versioon on minu poolt korralikult küljendatud PDF failina siin:


See artikkel räägib sellest, kuidas Paul Keres aastatel 1938 - 1948 male maailmameistriks ei saanud.

Kerese diskrimineerimisele peale teist maailmasõda on pööratud tähelepanu.

Muuhulgas käsitletakse Euwe ja Alehhini tüli ja seda, kuidas Euwe Alehhinile kätte maksis ja kuidas Euwe üheks päevaks maailmameistriks kuulutati, aga Euwe turniiriraamatus 1948 kuulutati Euwe Botvinnikule eelnenud maailmameistriks ning Alehhin pildilt kõrvaldati.

Samuti on käsitletud Botvinniku 1991. a. ilmunud intervjuud (mis kauaks tähelepanu alt välja oli jäänud), milles Botvinnik tunnistas Stalini plaanist, et Keres peab Alehhinile kaotama tahtlikult, et Botvinnikust saaks maailmameister.

Populaarne teooria väidab, et 1948 turniiril kaotas Keres Botvinnikule 4 partiid järjest sunnitult ja tahtlikult, nende viimases kohtumises viimases voorus aga kaotas juba maailmameistriks tulnud Botvinnik Keresele tahtlikult.

Selle teooria analüüs andis üllatavad tulemused. Kolmandale kohale konkureerisid Reshevsky ja Keres. Botvinnik kaotas Keresele veel enne, kui Euwe oli kaotanud Reshevskyle. Seetõttu võiks pigem arvata, et Euwe kaotas Reshevskyle tahtlikult.

Esitatud on viimase vooru mänguteoreetiline analüüs. Kolmandale kohale konkureerinud Keres ja Reshevsky ei mänginud omavahel. Nad mängisid vastastega, kelle koht edetabelis oli juba selgunud. NSVL esindajad mängisid omavahel ja lääne esindajad mängisid omavahel.

Kui eeldada koalitsioone "NSVL" ja "LÄÄS", saame tulemuse, et strateegiad "Botvinnik kaotab" ja "Euwe kaotab" on domineerivad strateegiad ning strateegiatepaar "Botvinnik ja Euwe mõlemad kaotavad" on Nashi tasakaal.

Seega juhul, kui viimaseks vooruks moodustati riiklikke või ideoloogilisi maletajate koalitsioone, oli vooru lõpptulemus - Botvinnik ja Euwe mõlemad kaotavad - mänguteooria ennustus ja soovitus.

Minu artiklis on esitatud ka tähtsamate sündmuste kronoloogia ning tähtsama kirjanduse ülevaade.